Con Coughlin
broke the habbush letter story in dec 2003. = on journalism = talking about the 45 minute wmds story: "Con Coughlin, the journalist who broke the stories, conceded he had "no way of verifying document. It's our job as journalists to air these things and see what happens."" http://www.newsweek.com/id/52722 = confusing quotes in two habbush letter articles = Compare Con's two articles: story x - "A leading member of Iraq's governing council, who asked not to be named, said he was convinced of the document's authenticity. "There are people who are working with us who used to work with Habbush who are convinced that it is his handwriting and signature. We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's dealings with al-Qaeda, and this document shows the extent of the old regime's involvement with the international terrorist network."" Does this link Saddam to 9/11? story y - "Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine. "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks." Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam Question: Are those quotes both from Allawi? Why did Coughlin get the wording mixed up? Did he take notes? Was the conversation written or taped, or was he recalling from memory? Question: Lets say both quotes are allawi : Why would he want to hide his name, then not care if his name is used? Is this related to the question of the documents being 'leaked'? (see The Great WMD Conspiracy Theory Unravels) lets say the quotes are from different people... Why are they so similar? but also so different? * ** story x - "There are people who are working with us who used to work with Habbush who are convinced that it is his handwriting and signature. ** story y - (blank, doesnt include) * ** story x - We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's dealings with al-Qaeda, ** story y - "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," * ** story x - "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. ** story y - (blank, doesnt include) * ** story x - and this document shows the extent of the old regime's involvement with the international terrorist network."" ** story y - It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks." *story x: 'people working with us' vouch for habbush writing and signature *story y: nope *story x: doesnt give allawi's name *story y: does give allawi's name *story x: calls evidence 'compelling' *story y: nope *story x: 'international terrorist network' *story y: 'those responsbile for sep 11 attacks' q: which story came first? = third versino of story? = donald sensings blog from dec 14 2003 has a different version of the text. "Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad. In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy". ... "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."" q: huh? = Fourth version of article??? = "Request for ties between Baghdad & BinLaden? akami Click here to see member profile (Dec 15 2003 - 02:40) Rate | Report Firstly; they got Saddam. Now give him to the Iraqi people and leave it at that. Even if you add up all the casualties inflicted by the US, either directly or indirectly; military and civilian, they only add up to a fraction of the numbers of Iraqis deliberately killed by Saddam. Now they have him - it's not a bad thing. He is. All you people who love the normal Iraqi, rejoice and pray for peace to return to Iraq. They would have never gotten it without the intervention. Saturday Dec. 13, 2003; 11:08 p.m. EST 9/11 Bombshell: Mohamed Atta Trained in Baghdad A bombshell memo written to Saddam Hussein in 2001 and recently uncovered by Iraq's new coalition government shows that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was trained to attack the U.S. in Baghdad. The memo, authored by Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, is dated July 1, 2001 and describes the "work program" undertaken by Atta at a base in Baghdad run by notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, reports London's Sunday Telegraph, which obtained the document exclusively. If authentic, the document would be the first explicit evidence implicating Iraq in the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, since it makes a direct reference to what appears to be the 9/11 plot. In one passage, the Iraqi intelligence chief reportedly informs Saddam that Atta had demonstrated his capability as leader of the team "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy." Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, the paper said. But Dr. Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine. "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he told the Telegraph. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks." In October 2001, two Iraqi defectors told U.S. intelligence that they helped train militant Muslim fundamentalists to overcome U.S. flight crews using hijacking techniques never seen before 9/11 at a south Baghdad training camp known as Salman Pak. One of the defectors, Sabah Khodada, subsequently told PBS that he believed the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by "graduates of Salman Pak." In what could turn out to be one of the greatest intelligence blunders of the post-9/11 era, the CIA and FBI dismissed Khodada and other eyewitness accounts of the hijack training regimen at Salman Pak, though their story was corroborated by satellite photography showing the fuselage of the airliner on which they trained. So those of you still looking for a connection, here you go. But look at the bright side, you can still poke fingers at the CIA and FBI for ignoring the information presented to them. Don't be guilty of the same ignorance." http://archive.japantoday.com/jp/bbs/msg/akami